Pushing the 4th edition envelope

[Storminator]

Oh, and I've yet to actually pull off a "wave" encounter. If I start with too few targets and too few attack actions my PCs rip thru the encounter, even if it's XP budget is right.

PS

 

[jodyjohnson]

**** this game. **** it and its ridiculous enemy-crushing combos. The final boss was a 15th level elite with seven level 11 allies who showed up first to wear the party down. Then once folks were sufficiently bloodied, the big bad arrived, split the party in two by creating a wall, then hurled one PC across the room and proned him with serious damage.

The prone PC (a hexblade) stood and charged, hit and dazed and weakened the baddie, then used an action point to deal more damage and restrain the enemy. The only other PC in the room (a druid) also charged, hit and knocked prone, action pointed, then hit again and imposed a penalty to attack rolls. He was now bloodied.

The big bad only had one action, so he attacked from prone, and indeed managed to hit, but only did half damage. And for his trouble he provoked an immediate reaction attack. I had him action point and attack again, which could have dropped a PC if the druid hadn't used an interrupt to grant the hexblade a bonus to defenses.

The two PCs attacked again. The big bad was dazed again. I spontaneously gave the big bad another 100 hit points so he could actually do something. The other two PCs managed to circumvent the wall and came within range, then action pointed and weakened the big bad again, leaving him with only 50 of the bonus HP left.

I Bull-Sh***ed a power for the villain where he cracked the ceiling of the whole dungeon, so that only his own telekinesis was holding it up, and if they killed him it would fall on all of them. He had to action point to stand up.

The PCs (quite cleverly, to be honest), hit him with some minor attacks that gave him a variety of "ongoing damage," then opened a short-range teleportal and ran through it. At the start of the villain's turn, the ongoing damage did him in, and he only crushed himself.

Satisfying for the players, sure, but only because I wildly broke the rules. PC powers -- in particular their ability to shut down enemies with daze, weaken, and stuff like "slide and knock prone" -- make it impossible to challenge the players with even a level +4 encounter. And that encounter involved a lot of enemies which slowed down play.

TL;DR -- Get rid of dazed and weakened, and make the ability to shut down enemies much rarer.

Sometimes I think it would be like watching an American football game where the offensive line would just push the defense on its backside every play and run for 20 yards up the middle - every single play.

It would be cool for a game or two.

Or a fantasy league where your Quarterback is actually Superman. "Clark Kent takes the ball from center and runs it 80 yards for the score dragging 3 defenders with him" (or simply superspeed and BING Touchdown!).

I think it comes down to vestiges of 'Combat as War' leaking through into what is best used as a 'Combat as Sport' game mechanically.

 

[fjw70]

Oh, and I've yet to actually pull off a "wave" encounter. If I start with too few targets and too few attack actions my PCs rip thru the encounter, even if it's XP budget is right.

PS

I have tried a wave battle several times. Usually it's a group of monsters that are at at level encounter with a solo or a couple elites in the background not planning on being involved in the fight the first wave is dead.

But what always happens is the PCs will do everything they can to get by the first wave and attack the big guys in the back not doing anything. So they split the party and get their butts kicked.

 

[Quickleaf]

[MENTION=63]RangerWickett[/MENTION]
I think you've totally identified one of the glaring problems unique to 4e: condition tracking, management, and PC-inflicted condition synergies. The latter comes into play more strongly starting in high heroic levels.

If I were redesigning 4e from scratch I definitely would look at the multiplier effect of conditions across different classes, dish out fewer condition afflicting abilities, and more unique interesting conditions that don't debilitate monsters when layered on.

Since I enjoy a lot about the game besides that glaring problem, and since I don't have the inclination to redesign the system, I deal with this on the DM side of the screen. Chiefly thru monster design and implementing action recovery traits, but also thru encounter design, which is a bit more art than science, This is an extra step of thinking a DM needs to do in 4e unfortunately, and DMs new to the system (particularly coming from other versions of D&D) are often tripped up by it. Fortunately the fixes don't require a lot of time or effort, but they do require being aware of the issue and tweaking monsters a bit.

 

[jodyjohnson]

The 4e design pushed the envolope of D&D a ton, in a whole bunch of directions at once.

Developing a AEDU structure instead of At-will and Daily.
All my toys always work
Narrative monster roles - minion, standard, elite, solo - specifically the codification of HP as combat pacing
HPE as core
The core math by level - especially after MM3/MV
Integrating statuses into a variety of classes via the power system
p42 ad hoc powers
HP math guaranteeing fights of tactical or set-piece length

I think the intersection of 'My toys always work' and 'Status effects for everyone' causes me the most angst.

Just at the point were we get options and alternatives for when our toys don't work, everything works on everything and we're back to hyperspecialization.

Then to have a decent fight we have a house-rule/fiat immunities back in.

In the 4e DMG it would have been nice to include more about reigning in or reversing some of the 'expanded boundaries' so that it wouldn't be years for groups to figure out what was bugging them about the changes.

 

[Pour]

I've thought a lot about the problems with condition tracking and while the easiest way to handle this comes the way of Quickleaf's suggestions on the DM side, I wonder if we couldn't have most conditions overwrite each other along certain established chains, ala slowed, immobilized, restrained, dazed, dominated, stunned, helpless, unconscious, dying or petrified; if something higher up the chain affects a target, it suffers that condition and loses the others. Might even work with ongoing damage of the same type, or is that actually the official ruling?

Mark, prone, and flank are really key to the tactical combat, in my mind, and achieving and losing them should be something that evolves and is tracked. I suppose you could have a game of precedence with all class features, and mark is overridden by things like warlock's curse and oath of enmity, or vice versa.

 

[Manbearcat]

I'm curious about this part in particular - the character roles during exploration. How exactly do you use those in your game? I tend to find all those tasks you divide according to role blur together organically among different PCs as the mood strikes them. Are there particular rules you've introduced for handling those tasks? For example, what does "camp manager" mean rules-wise? Another example, the ranger is very likely both Trailblazer (when traveling) and Quartermaster (when camping) - how do you involve other PCs to tackle these tasks then?

In the interest of full disclosure, in my homegame I have but 3 PCs, so this model works swimmingly for us. However, there are other occasions where there may need to be alternative roles or additive roles, such as Vanguard or Rearguard. In a group of 5, Vanguard and Rearguard would be sensible.

How exactly do they work in my game? The same way the combat roles work in 4e. Each role serves a specific niche that you can apply pressure to in order to sow conflict or challenge or you can provide content for them to interact/deal with that will let them "strut their thematic stuff." For the players, it helps to crystallize their fictional positioning on a perilous journey/expedition. What is my guy generally doing during active time? He's a Trailblazer? Oh, well he is navigating with charts or maps or trail signs. He is sending a runner out to check for landmarks/settlements. He is leading a group song of merriment on a long march for morale. For the GM, this helps crystallize what sort of complications/moves I need to introduce in order to focus this guy into a proactive position to resolve the conflict. Think of the sort of issues that challenge leadership generally and what sort of tropes in source fiction specifically. What sort of things troubled Captain Miller (Tom Hanks) in Saving Private Ryan? The troops are struggling, hurt, exhausted. Belief in the mission is waning. Setbacks are mounting. He reveals a truth that has been a lynchpin of the group's morale (guessing who he really was in civilian life). Diplomacy. These sorts of things will guide whether a player wants to try to earn a success with a primary check or buff an ally (or allies) with a secondary check. Maybe he wants to do something similar to Captain Miller or break out into song and give out a + 2 bonus on the subsequent Group Endurance check.

As far as blurring roles and them "happening organically." That is a table issue to decide. I've been on a few expeditions and there are clearly delineated roles in the same way that there are for sports. Organization doesn't just help from a utility perspective, it also helps from a morale perspective. Compartmentalization means that everyone has to rely on one another for something, everyone has to carry their weight, no one is overburdened, and "there is a plan" (which is exceedingly comfortable for humans in any endeavor.). That being said, it certainly doesn't have to manifest that way at anyone's home table. Folks can just say "we're off on a journey" and then the GM can try to work out the details, abstract the fictional positioning surrounding each character, and fit in complicating situations that they feel "works". If the group wants the Ranger to assume all of the primary responsibilities (Trailblazer, Scout, Quartermaster) while the Fighter assumes the position of the Vanguard and the Cleric assumes the position of the Rearguard, with the squishy(ies) in the middle as mere Traveler(s), then have it!

What does "camp manager" mean rules-wise? Well nothing really. Its just functional, transparent fictional positioning that posits general activities and telegraph's player intent. This guy is likely to be a support character, likely a Leader. This is an opportunity for the GM to set up adversity that challenges the skills of Endurance, Heal, Insight and relevant Knowledges.

Of course, there will be plenty of generic (eg Perception or any group check) challenges that can challenge anyone. Roles are just a way to better organize the thoughts of GMs with respect to what "moves" they want to make and what complications/situations they want to emerge in play to challenge specific PCs along the way. And it gives players some firm understanding of their fictional positioning throughout the journey. And again, it is certainly fair for the PCs to switch these as the journey wears on or on a 2nd attempt if they fail an initial Skill Challenge.

I hope that makes sense and sufficiently answers your questions. A vast, vast, vast majority of my games are completely off the cuff. So little things to firm up fictional positioning (such as Roles and Keywords) are enormous aides for calibrating my efforts specifically in challenging the players in ways they want to be challenged. Further, it helps work toward a better mutual understanding of our shared imaginary space.

 

[fjw70]

I've thought a lot about the problems with condition tracking and while the easiest way to handle this comes the way of Quickleaf's suggestions on the DM side, I wonder if we couldn't have most conditions overwrite each other along certain established chains, ala slowed, immobilized, restrained, dazed, dominated, stunned, helpless, unconscious, dying or petrified; if something higher up the chain affects a target, it suffers that condition and loses the others. Might even work with ongoing damage of the same type, or is that actually the official ruling?

Mark, prone, and flank are really key to the tactical combat, in my mind, and achieving and losing them should be something that evolves and is tracked. I suppose you could have a game of precedence with all class features, and mark is overridden by things like warlock's curse and oath of enmity, or vice versa.

I like that chain of conditions idea.

 

[Jhaelen]

TL;DR -- Get rid of dazed and weakened, and make the ability to shut down enemies much rarer.

This seems to be party-dependent, though. Our group, currently at level 13, only has two powers among themselves that can cause a daze - and both are dailys. I'm not aware of anyone having a power that weakens. Note that we usually play without a controller.

Most characters seem to have been built around either dealing as much damage as possible or maximizing survivability - or aren't optimized at all. It's mostly our opponents that are handing out conditions like candy.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Along the line of my "toughening" up minions with a degrading save against automatic damage - one could also use a similar mechanic for elites and solos. Elites and Solos always get save to ignore an inflicted condition (maybe only of limited types, as appropriate for the creature), but each succesful save adds a -2 penalty to the next save, resetting the penalty each time the save fails.

That could be in top of additional specials, like "saves at the start of his turn and the end of his turn".

It's basically a form of "hit points for condition damage".